There is one question which, though only occasionally asked, tends to linger in the minds of many newcomers to the study of Buddhism: "Do the teachings of kamma and not-self contradict each other?" If everything, including body and mind, is not-self, then how can there be kamma? Who is it who commits kamma? Who receives the results of kamma? These doubts are not simply a phenomenon of the present time, but have existed from the time of the Buddha, as can be seen in the following example:

A bhikkhu conceived the following doubt,

"We know that body, feeling, perception, volitional impulses and consciousness[b] are not self. If so, then who is it who receives the results of the kamma made by this 'non-self'?"

At that time, the Blessed One, knowing the thoughts of that bhikkhu, addressed the bhikkhus thus:

"Bhikkhus, it may be that some foolish people in this Teaching and Discipline, with mind fallen into ignorance and confused by desire, might conceive the teaching of the Master to be rationalized thus: 'We know that body, feeling, perception, volitional impulses and consciousness are not self. If that is so, who is it who receives the results of the kamma created by this "non-self"?' All of you now, having been thoroughly instructed by me, consider these matters: is form permanent or impermanent?" "Impermanent, Lord."

"Of that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, and normally subject to degeneration, is it proper to say that 'this is mine, this is me, this is my self'?" "No, it is not proper, Lord."

"For that reason, form, feeling, perception, volitional activities and consciousness, of whatever description, are merely form, feeling, perception, volitional activities and consciousness. They are not 'mine,' not 'me,' not 'my self.' Reflect on this as it is with wisdom. The learned, Noble Disciple, seeing in this way, does not attach to form, feeling, perception, volitional impulses or consciousness. He is free of those things, and has no further task to do."~ M.III.19; S.III.104 (M.14/129/106; S.17/192/126)From: Good, Evil and Beyond: Kamma in the Buddha's Teachings by Bhikkhu P.A. Payutto

Does anyone know how I can convert these PTS numbers into actual sutta numbers?M.III.19; S.III.104 (M.14/129/106; S.17/192/126)

Toward the end, the discussion turns on "what self does action affect?" and the response is that this question is to conceive, just as MN 2 advises us not to do. The issue is thinking in terms of self at any stage to any degree, instead of contemplating in terms of specific conditionality and the aggregates.

Even when discussing kamma, to bring in a self-claim (there is such, there is no such, even asking "is there such?") is already to be off-target.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

daverupa wrote:Toward the end, the discussion turns on "what self does action affect?" and the response is that this question is to conceive, just as MN 2 advises us not to do. The issue is thinking in terms of self at any stage to any degree, instead of contemplating in terms of specific conditionality and the aggregates.

Even when discussing kamma, to bring in a self-claim (there is such, there is no such, even asking "is there such?") is already to be off-target.

Thank you (although I hoped Dhammapal would respond). Is it a correct representation of your view to assume you are explaining that 'kamma' & 'selfing' are two different matters; that there can be kamma/vipaka without 'assuming self'?

Is it a correct representation of your view to assume you are explaining that 'kamma' & 'selfing' are two different matters; that there can be kamma/vipaka without 'assuming self'?

Hmm... the problem is that asking about kamma in terms of a self begs the question. Trying to relate kamma to self-ideation is simply misguided.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

daverupa wrote:Trying to relate kamma to self-ideation is simply misguided.

Are you sure? The sutta states:

Monk, these are the five aggregates, subjects of clinging....these five-clung-to-aggregates are rooted in desire....whatever passion & delight is there, that's the clinging there....the thought occurs to someone, 'May I be one with such a form in the future. May I be one with such a feeling... perception... fabrications... such a consciousness in the future'...this is how there would be diversity in the desire & passion for the five-clung-to-aggregates...where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self...assumes feeling to be the self...assumes perception to be the self...assumes fabrications to be the self...assumes consciousness to be the self...this, monk, is how self-identity view comes about....

Yet you appear to be suggesting the diversity in the desire & passion for the five-clung-to-aggregates, which is how self-identity view comes about, is unrelated to kamma, despite Buddha explaining kamma is intention & the diversity in kamma (AN 6.63); that when intention is comprehended, the three kinds of craving are comprehended (SN 12.63).

Anyway, the purpose of asking the question was not for entering into a debate. It was simply to investigate where Dhammapal thought the reference to kamma is made in the sutta. To relate kamma to self-ideation is certainly not misguided but, instead, the essence of kamma. Does a person kill, steal, misconduct sexually, lie, gamble & take intoxicants without self-ideation? Hardly the case. When a hunter intends to kill, when a robber intends to steal or when an adulterer intends to adulterate, is their mind not thinking: " 'May I be one with such a form in the future. May I be one with such a feeling... perception... fabrications... such a consciousness in the future'?

daverupa wrote:Trying to relate kamma to self-ideation is simply misguided.

Are you sure? The sutta states:

Monk, these are the five aggregates, subjects of clinging....these five-clung-to-aggregates are rooted in desire....whatever passion & delight is there, that's the clinging there....the thought occurs to someone, 'May I be one with such a form in the future. May I be one with such a feeling... perception... fabrications... such a consciousness in the future'...this is how there would be diversity in the desire & passion for the five-clung-to-aggregates...where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self...assumes feeling to be the self...assumes perception to be the self...assumes fabrications to be the self...assumes consciousness to be the self...this, monk, is how self-identity view comes about....

Yet you appear to be suggesting the diversity in the desire & passion for the five-clung-to-aggregates, which is how self-identity view comes about, is unrelated to kamma, despite Buddha explaining kamma is intention & the diversity in kamma (AN 6.63); that when intention is comprehended, the three kinds of craving are comprehended (SN 12.63).

Anyway, the purpose of asking the question was not for entering into a debate. It was simply to investigate where Dhammapal thought the reference to kamma is made in the sutta. To relate kamma to self-ideation is certainly not misguided but, instead, the essence of kamma. Does a person kill, steal, misconduct sexually, lie, gamble & take intoxicants without self-ideation? Hardly the case. When a hunter intends to kill, when a robber intends to steal or when an adulterer intends to adulterate, is their mind not thinking: " 'May I be one with such a form in the future. May I be one with such a feeling... perception... fabrications... such a consciousness in the future'?

It's an agreeable post; I was trying to say that talking about kamma in terms of a self being affected was misguided, and begged the question, but "self" as kammically-productive clinging-event(s), as above, seems correct.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

There is one question which, though only occasionally asked, tends to linger in the minds of many newcomers to the study of Buddhism: "Do the teachings of kamma and not-self contradict each other?" If everything, including body and mind, is not-self, then how can there be kamma? Who is it who commits kamma? Who receives the results of kamma? These doubts are not simply a phenomenon of the present time, but have existed from the time of the Buddha, as can be seen in the following example:

A bhikkhu conceived the following doubt,

"We know that body, feeling, perception, volitional impulses and consciousness[b] are not self. If so, then who is it who receives the results of the kamma made by this 'non-self'?"

At that time, the Blessed One, knowing the thoughts of that bhikkhu, addressed the bhikkhus thus:

"Bhikkhus, it may be that some foolish people in this Teaching and Discipline, with mind fallen into ignorance and confused by desire, might conceive the teaching of the Master to be rationalized thus: 'We know that body, feeling, perception, volitional impulses and consciousness are not self. If that is so, who is it who receives the results of the kamma created by this "non-self"?' All of you now, having been thoroughly instructed by me, consider these matters: is form permanent or impermanent?" "Impermanent, Lord."

"Of that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, and normally subject to degeneration, is it proper to say that 'this is mine, this is me, this is my self'?" "No, it is not proper, Lord."

"For that reason, form, feeling, perception, volitional activities and consciousness, of whatever description, are merely form, feeling, perception, volitional activities and consciousness. They are not 'mine,' not 'me,' not 'my self.' Reflect on this as it is with wisdom. The learned, Noble Disciple, seeing in this way, does not attach to form, feeling, perception, volitional impulses or consciousness. He is free of those things, and has no further task to do."~ M.III.19; S.III.104 (M.14/129/106; S.17/192/126)From: Good, Evil and Beyond: Kamma in the Buddha's Teachings by Bhikkhu P.A. Payutto

Does anyone know how I can convert these PTS numbers into actual sutta numbers?M.III.19; S.III.104 (M.14/129/106; S.17/192/126)

Thanks / dhammapal.

Buddha's taught of kamma: beings are owners of the actions, heirs of their actions. Whatever actions they do good or bad to that they shall become the heir.

One of the benefits of understanding action is restraint against bad actions and cultivation of good actions.

Instructing that the 5 aggregates affected by clinging are not self helps develope non-obsession with the 5 aggregates affected by clinging.